IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11871 of 2015 ==========================================================

CHAUHAN GOVINDBHAI KHUSALBHAI Versus COLLECTOR ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR SHAILESH C SHARMA(3450) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, AGP (1) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2 MR AJAY PANDAV, ADVOCATE for the RESPONDENT(s) 3 NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3,4 ==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA Date : 19/03/2018

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate Mr.Shailesh Sharma for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Divyangna Jhala for the respondent – State who served with the notice, as well as learned advocate Mr.Ajay Pandav for the private respondents.

2. The challenge is directed against order dated 28^th January, 2015 passed by the Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) dismissing the Revisional Application No.64 of 2013 of the petitioner herein.

3. The dispute dealt with by the revenue authorities was in respect of mutation Entry No.33665 which was entered in the record on 13^th October, 2006 in favour of the petitioner herein. The petitioner had got mutated the Entry on the basis of the Will

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

of the land bearing Survey No.1124/2 Paiki at Village Karamsad, Taluka & District Anand.

3.1 The said Entry was objected to and came to be disapproved by Mamlatdar in Dispute Case No.07 of 2007 and the entry was cancelled on 10^th September, 2007. Appeal No.20 of 2010 before the Deputy Collector against the said cancellation met with failure as the same was dismissed on 30^th March, 2012. Further challenge thereto before the Collector also failed as the Collector dismissed the Appeal on 15^th April, 2013.

4. Thereafter came to be filed the Revision Application, culminating into the impugned order.

5. All the authorities have concurrently observed that the land in question was subjected to restrictions under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. It was further noted that the objection was from the heirs and the Will was disputed. It was also noticed by the authorities that the petitioner was not a straight-line heir, that the maker of the Will died in 2002 and prior to the instant cancellation, on two occasions, Entries were mutated and cancelled. It was further stated that though the dispute about the land was decided in 2007, Appeal was filed after lapse of three years in the year 2010. The dely aspect stared on the face at every stage. The reasons supplied by the authorities and the revisional authority could not be said to be

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

recording the Entry claimed by the petitioner. 6. At the same time, it is to be observed that the Revenue Entry would not decide anything related to title or any incidence of ownership in respect of the subject matter property. The parties, including the petitioner herein, would be at liberty to approach the civil court and get their rights crystalised in the context of the Will as it is being relied on.

6.1 The impugned order as well as this order shall have no reflection on the title related claim of the petitioner.

7. Subject to the aforesaid observation, no further interference is called for in the impugned order. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Notice stands discharged.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

Anup

Click Here to Read the rest of this document